'What about building 7'?

[BigAl]

Big lie.

So much for your credibility.

MM

Why is " lean" a requirement for you? The Deutsche Bank Building wasn't leaning or bulging or on fire yet it was declared a loss and later disassembled beam by beam.

Why don't you address the other points I made?

Have you read 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 yet?.

 

[twinstead]

I just want to know how this bulge fits in to any CD theory. It the CD theory really was better than the commonly-held theory of the collapse, this bulge should fit into it.

 

[alienentity]

......

We know they placed a transit on the building.

We know that the NIST reported both the bulge and the transit.

....

We also know that there was only early fire damage when the bulge was reported.

We also know that the NIST determined that debris damage to WTC 7 was not a factor in
its collapse.

We also know that there was no evidence of sufficient internal structural support damage to have caused the southeast corner bulge.

....
MM

Correction: SouthWest corner

A bulge requires redistribution of load paths in a building of this construction. That is a factor in the eventual collapse of the building. Clearly the debris damage was both external and internal.
Clearly the fires were mainly internal.

All these things were correctly recognized by the FDNY professionals onscene. What's also crystal-clear is that their opinion on that day was that the building was in danger of collapse due to these conditions.
There is no doubt at all about this opinion.

Why would they mention the bulge at all if it were not a significant indicator? Do you really think that they would dwell on an irrelevant matter at that point?
Chief Fellini clearly thought the structure of the building was compromised - he was clearly referring to internal structure, not merely a few broken windows.

The Truther narrative cannot include these facts, but systematically extracts them from the details and discards them as irrelevant. This is a fundamental error in the Truther modus, which allows their faulty conclusions to continue.

'Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy'

 

[leftysergeant]

Really? People have a problem distinguishing a comparative statement: "sounded like bombs." to a declarative statement: "The sound of bombs."?

I shall have to tread lightly it seems.

Welcome to the melee. Watch out for falling fallacies of language. They are the most widely used weapon of self destruction here.

 

[tfk]

Correct , The WTC1 tower is missing- This still was taken after the 2nd tower,the WTC1 tower, collapsed.
The lack of fires is the clue.!

EXCELLENT ! This is where we left off-The two WTC twin towers have collapsed and the WTC7 tower cameo showing no visible damage,fire,or smoke minutes after the WTC 1 demolition. My question was--
Where are the raging inferno fires that the NYC fire department could not attack?

What is your point?

That no fires ever existed? Provably wrong by 1000s of photographs of WTC7 on fire. (If you look where there is, you know, fire & smoke.)

That, for some reason, there should have been not time delay in fires starting on the south side of the building & their becoming evident on the north side? Millions of people have gotten out of burning buildings safely over the years. Proving that it takes time for fires to spread thru buildings.

Do you have a point?

Hey look: no sign of impact in Tower 2...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/10/article-1160905-0558BA6A0000044D-567_468x527.jpg

... yet.


tom

 

[Miragememories]

What is most telling is how you "have nothings" supporting the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory are making a mountain out of something for which you have so little information..a bulge.

The big story is with the NIST's bogus theory about column 79.

How could it collapse, pulling down the east penthouse and all the floors between 13 and the roof and only break a few windows on the north face?

How, with all their budget, all their staff, and almost 7 years of investigation, could the NIST fail to see the 8-story free fall and arrogantly announce they had finally solved the collapse of WTC 7 in their final report for public comment?

Not until a high school teacher called them out, did they make the correction and add it to their final report a few months later. Absolutely amazing.

And how about those fires that supposed caused the critical failure of column 79 at floor 13. This in spite of the evidence which argued the fires were moving away from that location some time before collapse. Fires which Dr. Greening calculated were way under-fueled for the task the NIST's computer simulation placed on them.

Yet you guys are all pre-occupied with a bulge far away from the point of controversy and in the known southwest corner damage location.

MM

 

[alienentity]

And yet the FDNY professional's on-the-day assessment was correct. How 'bout that?

Bulge and all, FDNY got it right. And 9 years later, Truthers are still getting it wrong. Really tells you the story, don't it?

 

[cooperman]

What is most telling is how you "have nothings" supporting the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory are making a mountain out of something for which you have so little information..a bulge.

The big story is with the NIST's bogus theory about column 79.

How could it collapse, pulling down the east penthouse and all the floors between 13 and the roof and only break a few windows on the north face?

How, with all their budget, all their staff, and almost 7 years of investigation, could the NIST fail to see the 8-story free fall and arrogantly announce they had finally solved the collapse of WTC 7 in their final report for public comment?

Not until a high school teacher called them out, did they make the correction and add it to their final report a few months later. Absolutely amazing.

And how about those fires that supposed caused the critical failure of column 79 at floor 13. This in spite of the evidence which argued the fires were moving away from that location some time before collapse. Fires which Dr. Greening calculated were way under-fueled for the task the NIST's computer simulation placed on them.

Yet you guys are all pre-occupied with a bulge far away from the point of controversy and in the known southwest corner damage location.

MM

This is a brilliant point that I have never seen a debunker address.

If NIST are such an amazing group of respected and experienced scientists, that we should trust to get it right, why did it take a "truther" to point out to them that there was a freefall period in wtc7's collapse?

I don't mean to hijack your question MM, but I wanted to reiterate that point and try and get an answer to it.

 

[T.A.M.]

ummm....I am guessing because IT IS *********** IRRELEVANT to the collapse...to the sane that is.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

What is most telling is how you "have nothings" supporting the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory are making a mountain out of something for which you have so little information..a bulge.

The big story is with the NIST's bogus theory about column 79.

How could it collapse, pulling down the east penthouse and all the floors between 13 and the roof and only break a few windows on the north face?

How, with all their budget, all their staff, and almost 7 years of investigation, could the NIST fail to see the 8-story free fall and arrogantly announce they had finally solved the collapse of WTC 7 in their final report for public comment?

Not until a high school teacher called them out, did they make the correction and add it to their final report a few months later. Absolutely amazing.

And how about those fires that supposed caused the critical failure of column 79 at floor 13. This in spite of the evidence which argued the fires were moving away from that location some time before collapse. Fires which Dr. Greening calculated were way under-fueled for the task the NIST's computer simulation placed on them.

Yet you guys are all pre-occupied with a bulge far away from the point of controversy and in the known southwest corner damage location.

MM

The Deutsche Bank Building wasn't leaning or bulging or on fire yet it was declared a loss and later disassembled beam by beam.

The bulge was a tiny part of FDNY's conclusion that WTC7 was doomed. Apparently you haven't read Pages 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 yet.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

 

[willhaven]

Here is a better question.

"Why do we bother fireproofing steel frame buildings when they can completely collapse even when they have the fireproofing on?"

So people have time to get out. That's a pretty obvious answer.

So, why do you think they apply spray on fireproofing to steel buildings?

Bueller?

 

[Miragememories]

ummm....I am guessing because IT IS *********** IRRELEVANT to the collapse...to the sane that is.

TAM

If it was irrelevant [drum roll] they would have continued to ignore it!

It became step 2 in their detailed analysis of the global collapse.

But no one here, accept us 9/11 Truthers are interested.

I can see the post burial detail is already starting.

Rather than engage in a genuine honest discussion, the OCT bigots have to
hide any disturbing posts from innocent visitors.

MM

 

[aggle-rithm]

If NIST are such an amazing group of respected and experienced scientists, that we should trust to get it right, why did it take a "truther" to point out to them that there was a freefall period in wtc7's collapse?

NIST has proven to be very patient about exploring crackpot scenarios that are brought to their attention, just to show that there is nothing of substance there. Witness the several paragraphs in the final report where they demonstrate quite conclusively that controlled demolition could not possibly have been the cause of the collapse. This is classic fly-swatting-with-sledgehammer; the idea is so ludicrous that it's hard to believe any rational adult would take it seriously. Nevertheless, NIST took the time to address it.

 

[Sabretooth]

And how about those fires that supposed caused the critical failure of column 79 at floor 13. This in spite of the evidence which argued the fires were moving away from that location some time before collapse.

The words are attempting to dodge the point of the conversation again.

The part I left up has already been discussed in this very thread, don't ignore it and claim it's unresolved.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here is a better question.

"Why do we bother fireproofing steel frame buildings when they can completely collapse even when they have the fireproofing on?"

Yes, why don't they make buildings so they can never fall down, ever?

And, you know that stuff they make black boxes out of, so they'll survive the plane crash? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that?

And why do puppies have to die?

And magnets...how the hell do they work? It's a mystery.

 

[cooperman]

NIST has proven to be very patient about exploring crackpot scenarios that are brought to their attention, just to show that there is nothing of substance there. Witness the several paragraphs in the final report where they demonstrate quite conclusively that controlled demolition could not possibly have been the cause of the collapse. This is classic fly-swatting-with-sledgehammer; the idea is so ludicrous that it's hard to believe any rational adult would take it seriously. Nevertheless, NIST took the time to address it.

That isn't what I asked. Why did it require a truther to tell NIST that there was an 2.25 second period of free fall involved in the collapse? WHy didn't they notice this when they had dozens of expert engineers doing computer simulations and studying video?

 

[DGM]

This is a brilliant point that I have never seen a debunker address.

If NIST are such an amazing group of respected and experienced scientists, that we should trust to get it right, why did it take a "truther" to point out to them that there was a freefall period in wtc7's collapse?

I don't mean to hijack your question MM, but I wanted to reiterate that point and try and get an answer to it.

A "truther" didn't. You just bought the lie. Look at the data in the draft report.

 

[twinstead]

I'm still waiting for the nitpicking NIST to stop and the actual presentation of evidence of CD is brought forward, because even if the NIST can be shown to be totally wrong, one isn't allowed to simply insert whatever pet theory one wants in its place.

I would imagine that theorizing CD wouldn't even be possible without some kind of evidence to support it.

 

[srsjuiceman]

Let me see if I understand this as a layperson with no experience in any kind of structural engineering.

WTC7 was ignited by falling debris from the collapse of the neighboring buildings. The collapse also inflicted some structural damage, but that wasn't the cause of the final collapse. The fire spread through the building, eating all that was combustible before moving on. With no water the fireproofing is pushed past its rating and the heat degrades the steel. The heating and then cooling made the steel structure expand and contract making the connections between the floors and support columns weaken to the point that they can't support their own weight. The floors collapse internally, and now with the floors no longer able to 'stiffen' the structure, the weight of the building is too much and gravity takes over, pulling the whole thing down.

Is that about right? Seems perfectly logical. What is this about moments of free fall and how does that change what initiated the collapse of WTC7?

Would this bulge that people saw account for the appearance of a lean? Imagine I have two straws that represent the opposite corners of a building. I bow one out slightly and now the distance between the tips is reduced. The opposite side is now slightly higher. While it isn't actually leaning, the crooked angle may give the appearance of leaning. Could be totally wrong, just shooting from the hip.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm still waiting for the nitpicking NIST to stop and the actual presentation of evidence of CD is brought forward, because even if the NIST can be shown to be totally wrong, one isn't allowed to simply insert whatever pet theory one wants in its place.

I would imagine that theorizing CD wouldn't even be possible without some kind of evidence to support it.

Exactly, this is the same game played by Creationists and Moon Hoax proponents.